Best web browser for windows 95.

JohnnyTodd

Using Internet explorer ATM. Pretty old os but I need to keep running it in certain parts of plant. Ie is very slow. Is google chrome or Firefox any better?

dlofnep

Chrome won't work for Windows 95. I doubt Firefox would either. You could download a legacy version of Netscape.

Fysh

What in the name of God are you doing letting a Windows 95 machine have internet access?

Needing it for legacy hardware reasons is one thing, letting it anywhere near a live network connection with internet access is another matter entirely, which frankly is even less appealing that cutting off my arm using a blade made from my own toenails.

Overheal

Everything Fysh said.

When you connect to websites you always transmit basic information about your system: your screen resolution, browser version, operating system, etc. etc. - this information is legitimately required by websites to handle content delivery and give you a readable version of the page. However in the hands of anyone wishing to act maliciously, the moment they see you running a legacy setup they can unleash any manner of Nasty at you: Windows 95 is not exactly bullet proof. When Microsoft dropped support for it, it was still full of security loopholes.

And you need this running to operate a Plant???

DUDE.

This is WHY the security community is freaked out about the possibility of someone hacking into the power grid, among other things.

Take a look at this delightful video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJyWngDco3g

Above video caused by creating a computer glitch that messed with the timing in the turbine, causing it to overspin and burn out.

Keep the god damn PC offline. There is no good reason for you to need to access the Internet on that dinosaur for anything whatsoever.

If you want the internet may I suggest a Netbook??? JHC.

Capt'n Midnight

windows 95 did not come with a browser , that alone should give you some indication of how unsafe it is to use.

windows 95 has no security, you can press Esc to bypass the logon password and then any command/app can do anything to any files that aren't locked open (and even then you are one reboot from changing them)

find out when 95 support ended.
as a first approximation assume that every patch for 98 and ME after that date also applies to 95 since they use the same code base. Microsoft don't release security notices after they stop supporting an OS. you can also assume that a lot of the patches for other version of windows also apply since some holes were only found 15 years later.

what you could do is run 95 in a VM and use shared folders to copy files
but I suspect that would make stuff difficult with control


Best advice for 95 is remove all network components. Remove TCP/IP and use NetBUI instead if you absolutely need remote connectivity, (mainly I'd see this for backing up the 95 box) you can setup a second PC with this protocol too, NetBEUI for XP this will allow you to copy files back and forth. If using windows 7 use XP mode.

carveone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

windows 95 did not come with a browser , that alone should give you some indication of how unsafe it is to use.

Well, I wouldn't say that follows really. I used Lynx on a Vax mainframe in the early days (1994/5). Pretty solid. And sad

But yeah, Windows 95/98/Me OSes have no security. However my mother used a Windows 98SE box (PII/400) up until March this year without issues using IE6 and Outlook Express. On dialup (Bit painful that). It was locked down as much as I could do it though. No Microsoft Client/File and Print sharing giving zero open ports. No Active X allowed, Abode Flash kill bit set.

No firewall (no open ports so no need). No AntiVirus (email attachments filtered, no html mail). Did a full scan with Sophos and Norton before putting it out to pasture, no malware

This box was considerably safer than XP before SP2. Older Windows had virtually no services running.

Still and all, it's a touch crufty. Even 98SE would be preferable. And no other browser other than Lynx is going to give you any speed increase due to the probable slowness of the underlying hardware. Javascript is a total killer - boards.ie took forever on a PII/400 to render that menu at the top. Browsing the modern net on hardware that old must be just infuriating.

Just say no

uncle_sam_ie

Couldn't he just put ubuntu on that machine. I mean there are some people out there that just want to use the internet without having to spend money on a new PC?

PogMoThoin

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Couldn't he just put ubuntu on that machine. I mean there are some people out there that just want to use the internet without having to spend money on a new PC?

A pc for Win 95 wouldn't have enough horsepower for Ubuntu

Fysh

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Couldn't he just put ubuntu on that machine. I mean there are some people out there that just want to use the internet without having to spend money on a new PC?

If it's a legacy machine used in a plant, it's very unlikely that it can be easily upgraded - because otherwise, the smart solution would be "Nuke Win95 from high orbit and start from scratch with a modern Windows release".

The hardware, however, is almost definitely sufficiently ancient that it likely won't support anything beyond the also-ancient Windows 98 (maybe, if you're very lucky, you'd get Win2k - also pretty ancient and well out of the extended support phase from MS at this point - to run on it).

Which brings us back to square 1 - if the machine can't be decommissioned and replaced with something modern because it has an important job to do, it has absolutely no business being anywhere %$£&ing near a live network connection. As part of my job I have to support a whole bunch of ancient computers running legacy OS of various sorts which are used to interface expensive lab systems that cost hundreds of times what the computer would have cost. They're impossible to secure in a manner that would make letting them have network access a safe and worthwhile task, especially if the only reason for doing so is to let some bored operator look at boards or watch youtube videos while they're waiting for some process to complete.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

A pc for Win 95 wouldn't have enough horsepower for Ubuntu

Oh god, memories of using Win95 at home are coming back to haunt me A maximum of 480MB of RAM and 2GB of hard drive space? *shudder* The stability you'd expect of a one-legged table balanced on the nose of an epileptic penguin in a disco? *panic* Susceptibility to the dreaded ping of death? /me runs gibbering from the room.

Overheal

worth noting the PC wouldn't even have the power to run boards: the first animated flash ad it comes across it will explode.

Odaise Gaelach

...I kinda want to install it again now. On an isolated virtual machine, of course.

Overheal

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

...I kinda want to install it again now. On an isolated virtual machine, of course.

It would go something like this, but with viruses:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152048/bigboned-joins-the-chat

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

tech

I came across a Windows 3.11 for workgroups last year in a live production site!! really old instrument connected to it, and if they changed the instrument it was going to cost 1 millon so cheaper to have a few spare 386/ 486 around for backup!

Dude111

carveone wrote:

Windows 95/98/Me OSes have no security.

Not true bud...

You can find firewalls and things that run fine on 98se (I wouldnt wanna go online w/o one (YOU CANT TRUST PEOPLE NOWADAYS))

Fysh

Dude111 wrote: »

Not true bud...

You can find firewalls and things that run fine on 98se (I wouldnt wanna go online w/o one (YOU CANT TRUST PEOPLE NOWADAYS))

Even if you can find those things...given the hardware constraints that come with Win9x and the assumption of being a bare-metal install (ie not a VM), what could possibly make it worth keeping said ancient OS and yet putting it online? I can see only heartache as a result.

carveone

Dude111 wrote: »

carveone wrote:

Windows 95/98/Me OSes have no security.

Not true bud...

You can find firewalls and things that run fine on 98se (I wouldnt wanna go online w/o one (YOU CANT TRUST PEOPLE NOWADAYS))

I didn't say no security applications, I said no security period There's no ownership or priviledge model. That's all I meant.

Besides, if you've no ports available to connect to, there's no need for a firewall (unless you want to stop outgoing connections).

Capt'n Midnight

carveone wrote: »

Besides, if you've no ports available to connect to, there's no need for a firewall (unless you want to stop outgoing connections).

so you're saying that windows 95 is immune to remote exploits ?

not even ye olde ping of death :P

or the multiple vulnerabilities in how images are displayed (NT4 could be owned by a .bmp)

or the way outlook express would autorun an email on arrival (IIRC you didn't even have to open it)

carveone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

so you're saying that windows 95 is immune to remote exploits ?

not even ye olde ping of death :P

Ok, you've got me on that one!

I was using 98SE for the most part and a firewall wouldn't protect you from email viruses. Which is why I configured OE to display text only.

Nothing like that boards.ie javascript monster on the top of every page (the menu) to mangle an old Windows 98 machine. It just sits there thinking for about 40 seconds.

I guess if you've got some crufty VB 4 app talking to a GPIB card on Windows 95, you'd rather just keep the setup you have rather than make the pain worse

Fysh

carveone wrote: »

I guess if you've got some crufty VB 4 app talking to a GPIB card on Windows 95, you'd rather just keep the setup you have rather than make the pain worse

We've got people running 20-year-equipment in a lab in my place that's controlled by a machine they "sourced" via ebay because they "need" sufficiently old hardware that FreeDOS is the only viable OS to talk to the kit. (When I say "need", what I mean is "for some reason never planned for the time when DOS would no longer be a viable OS, and are now whingening that 20 years on they'll need to buy a new licence for the software as well as a new interface card, which will set them back somewhere between a few hundred pounds and a couple of grand").

And that's separate to the various Win95 and Win98 boxes we've got around. I think someone's still using some gear that's controlled by a Windows 3.11 box too, but that could just be a recurring nightmare...

MrVestek

Overheal wrote: »

It would go something like this, but with viruses:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152048/bigboned-joins-the-chat

Booo! That's region locked over here.

DoesNotCompute

Fysh wrote: »

What in the name of God are you doing letting a Windows 95 machine have internet access?

Needing it for legacy hardware reasons is one thing, letting it anywhere near a live network connection with internet access is another matter entirely, which frankly is even less appealing that cutting off my arm using a blade made from my own toenails.

+1

To the original poster, this application you need to run... why not run it in a virtual machine? Putting windows 95 on the internet (patched or not) is asking for trouble. MS no longer support it, so any security holes in it will never be patched, leaving you exposed to being hacked and/or bitten by worms/viruses, etc. I hope to Gods you have this windows 95 machine, at the very least, on an insolated network.

Overheal

Achilles wrote: »

Booo! That's region locked over here.

[The southpark scene where cartmen enters a NAMBLA chatroom]

Sonics2k

Overheal wrote: »

[The southpark scene where cartmen enters a NAMBLA chatroom]

Better late than never I guess Overheal :pac:

MrVestek

Holy dragged up old thread Batman!

Squeaky the Squirrel

lets search this place out

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/08/technology/security/shodan/

Would have been a laugh to defrost the ice rink...I kid.

Guerilla researcher created epic botnet to scan billions of IP addresses

MrVestek

Holy thread revival (nine months later) Batman!

Squeaky the Squirrel

Hehe

Overheal

Can we sticky this thread? It's a ****ing classic.

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

A pc for Win 95 wouldn't have enough horsepower for Ubuntu

There are many other versions of linux that will run fine on that hardware. If you disable cpu intensive applications like flash it should be fine for basic browsing and email.

Fysh

tuxy wrote: »

There are many other versions of linux that will run fine on that hardware. If you disable cpu intensive applications like flash it should be fine for basic browsing and email.

Are you kidding? Look at how much Javascript a site like boards.ie uses, and imagine how well that'll run on something like the hardware you'd be getting in a Win95-era PC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for recycling and repurposing where possible, but you're going to get a computing experience analogous to installing Linux on your toaster if you take a win95-era machine and stick anything but the most resolutely basic distribution of Linux on to it, and even then it will be unable to usefully use most contemporary web-based services.

There is one thing to do with a machine that old, and the single-word description of that thing is "disposal".

MrVestek

I have the perfect Operating System for that hardware, it'll work a treat!

Screenshot here:
http://goo.gl/6z7GH

tuxy

Fysh wrote: »

Are you kidding? Look at how much Javascript a site like boards.ie uses, and imagine how well that'll run on something like the hardware you'd be getting in a Win95-era PC.

You know a browser like lynx will work just fine for reading boards

I see the OP probably needs to keep on to win95 for some reason. If you want speed then the win32 version of lynx will do the job. Perhaps someone else knows of other lightweight browsers that provide more junction.

The PC is obviously working fine at its intended function so why scrap it?

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

The PC is obviously working fine at its intended function so why scrap it?

Because its a power hungry beast with the processing power of a wristwatch, a more modern PC will save you money. It's a false economy to run something like this.

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Because its a power hungry beast with the processing power of a wristwatch, a more modern PC will save you money. It's a false economy to run something like this.

How power hungry is it?

Fysh

tuxy wrote: »

You know a browser like lynx will work just fine for reading boards

I see the OP probably needs to keep on to win95 for some reason. If you want speed then the win32 version of lynx will do the job. Perhaps someone else knows of other lightweight browsers that provide more junction.

The PC is obviously working fine at its intended function so why scrap it?

If the OP needs to keep Win95 around for some reason (specific software/hardware support, for example) that's one thing.

There is no sane reason for putting that system on the internet at large without taking a substantial number of precautions to prevent the many, many vulnerabilities that would be exploitable in the OS from being used by bored or malicious attackers for fun, profit or mischief. And that's without even discussing the horrendous experience of getting any current software to run on Windows 95 unless it's been written expressly for that.

The way I see it, one of two situations apply:
a) the machine and OS have to be retained for some non-trivial reason (controlling hardware, running specialist software etc). In which case, fine, but keep the damn thing offline; or
b) the machine and OS have been retained for no real reason and the only use of the machine is web browsing - in which case the electrical power inefficiency on the system will alone mean that it's likely the most expensive way of doing very basic web browsing available.

Why scrap it? Because unless it's doing a very specialised job, it's the Cro-Magnon man of computers and will cost far more in terms of time spent maintaining it (or just waiting for it to do stuff) than the cost of a basic contemporary replacement.

Jesus, I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation.

Edited to add:

tuxy wrote: »

How power hungry is it?

For a Win95-era machine, you're talking the best part of 20 years of degradation of the components (capacitor leakage, etc) as well as hardware which had no real power efficiency to speak of. So while the actual processing power available would likely cost you maybe 30W on modern hardware (or less on something like a Pi), a machine this old and creaky is likely to be using far more than that. Only the OP can answer for sure, but I'd lay odds on it being the least efficient way available of getting that amount of computational power.

tuxy

The OP says he needs to keep it running in certain parts of the plant.

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

How power hungry is it?

Specs haven't been posted, but they all were back then. One of the great advances in computers along with the huge increase in processing power is the energy saving features. They do things more efficiently and downclock themselves to a low power state when the power isn't required. There is even a huge difference in power consumption between running a modern PC and a 7 year old Pentium 4, a Windows 95 PC is most likely 10 years older than that. It's a dinosaur

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

The OP says he needs to keep it running in certain parts of the plant.

Well then, keep it off the internet

skimpydoo

Achilles wrote: »

Booo! That's region locked over here.

I can see it just fine. Where are you?.

Fysh

Further to my previous post, go take a look at this page for a list of some of the outstanding Windows 95 vulnerabilities.

Then consider that not only would you be risking the integrity and security of your own system by putting such a paleocomputer on the internet, but you'd also likely be contributing to problems experienced elsewhere given how easily it could be exploited and roped into DDOS attacks or botnets.

tuxy wrote: »

The OP says he needs to keep it running in certain parts of the plant.

Maybe he does. I can tell you from professional experience, such systems may well be necessary for equipment running, but they very rarely need to be networked. 99 times out of 100, someone saying that they "need" such a system on the network is actually saying "My job involves long, boring hours watching this thing and being on call in case the Red Light O' Doom lights up, and I want this computer networked so I can look at cat videos on youtube/browse boards/view wildly inappropriate video content when I think nobody's looking".

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

There is even a huge difference in power consumption between running a modern PC and a 7 year old Pentium 4, a Windows 95 PC is most likely 10 years older than that. It's a dinosaur

But something like a pentium II would only use a fraction(25% I think) of the power of the notoriously hungry P4. So you can't base power usage on age. Perhaps the OP has a power hungry system but maybe not. How can you say with out system specs?

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

But something like a pentium II would only use a fraction(25% I think) of the power of the notoriously hungry P4. So you can't base power usage on age. Perhaps the OP has a power hungry system but maybe not. How can you say with out system specs?

A Raspberry Pi is 2.5 Watt and has more processing power

I have a dual core Atom HTPC that uses 15 Watt streaming 1080p media from my network

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

A Raspberry Pi is 2.5 Watt and has more processing power

I have a dual core Atom HTPC that uses 15 Watt streaming 1080p media from my network

Do you think the windows 95 software the op needs will run on a ARM processor?

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

Do you think the windows 95 software the op needs will run on a ARM processor?

Me thinks you're trolling now.

We understand the OP needs to keep this PC running, that is fine. I've dealt with situations like this from time to time. But FFS, it has no place on the internet

Fysh

Tuxy:

Why exactly are you so insistent on arguing against the good advice re: not networking an ancient, bug-riddled OS that will only run on ancient legacy hardware that has been given in this thread?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just genuinely curious why you seem to think that it's a good idea when to everyone else (or at least everyone with professional sysadmin experience) it's an appalling idea.

tuxy

The system is already networked there would be a reason behind this. Windows 95 is the operating system the OP needs. I'm going on the facts provided by the OP not speculation that many of the other posts contain.

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

The system is already networked there would be a reason behind this. Windows 95 is the operating system the OP needs. I'm going on the facts provided by the OP not speculation that many of the other posts contain.

Being networked doesn't necessarily mean has internet access

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Being networked doesn't necessarily mean has internet access

Then perhaps his current use of IE is for some internal web server or he has parts of the intenet burnt to cd rom. People should advise him if there is a better option to the IE browser on win 95 since that's his question.

Fysh

tuxy wrote: »

The system is already networked there would be a reason behind this. Windows 95 is the operating system the OP needs. I'm going on the facts provided by the OP not speculation that many of the other posts contain.

The OP needs Win95.

The OP needs to control some unspecified plant equipment.

We know the OP is asking about browsers, not that the machine is networked or that its primary function requires networking.

Facts you're conveniently ignoring include:

• the relatively high power consumption and relatively low computational power present in Windows 95 era hardware, compared to modern equivalents
• the high number of unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows 95
• the consistency of professional advice from various posters including myself regarding the relative sanity of networking such a system

You're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. All I'm saying is that you're basing it on a highly selective (and IMO silly) set of facts rather than all available information. And, yes, I'm inclined to think you're trolling at this stage.

Edited to add: You do realise the OP hasn't returned to this thread since starting it nearly 2 years ago, yeah?

tuxy

Fysh wrote: »

Edited to add: You do realise the OP hasn't returned to this thread since starting it nearly 2 years ago, yeah?

Of course that's why I'm using all available info in my answers.
The OP needs win 95 and needs a browser that work on win 95. This is all we have to go on.
It's been an interesting debate.